Markus Stumpf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:30:18PM -0800, Eric Wang wrote:
> > server the stability and efficiency is extremely high demand.
> > Any suggestion and experience are highly appreciated.
>
> First I have to say that we don't use the scanner.
>
> Some month ago someone posted to this list that plugging a virus scanner
> in at a busy mail server demands a magnitude of 300-400% more cpu
> power as compared to running without one.
> So, if efficiency is a extremely high demand for you check your ressources.
>
> I don't think that the qmail-scanner alone will have any effect on the
> stability tho.
>
> \Maex
>
> --
> SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
> Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
Consider this scenario for incoming mail:
mail.company.com on one side of firewall - firewall.internal.company.com
on inside running sendmail forwarding to
scanningbox.internal.company.com that is aliased in dns to
smtp.internal.company.com forwards everything to
imap.internal.company.com (this is your main qmail server)
Consider this scenario for outgoing mail:
smtp in clients configured to use scanningbox.internal.company.com
scanningox forwards everything to imap.internal.company.com
imap.internal.company.com forwards all outgoing mail to
firewall.internal.company.com
Configuration:
smtp.internal.company.com (scanningbox) is the highest mx record in the
company. This way, scanningbox scans all incoming and outgoing messages
and doesn't put a load on the mail server.
Mike
